Full Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2026 CA 0522 tj MARK HANNA # 132872 VERSUS LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS JUDGMENT RENDERED: NOV 0 6 2026 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge • State of Louisiana Docket Number 758469 • Division 32 The Honorable William Jorden, Presiding Judge Mark Hanna, DOC # 132872 APPELLANT Louisiana State Penitentiary PLAINTIFF— Pro se Angola, Louisiana Jonathan Vining COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Baton Rouge, Louisiana DEFENDANT— Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections BEFORE: THERIOT, GREENE, AND EDWARDS, JJ. EDWARDS, J. Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana (" LSP"), appeals a judgment of the district court dismissing without prejudice his petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, Mark Hanna, is currently incarcerated at LSP. In or around December 2024, while Mr. Hanna was incarcerated at Rayburn Correctional Center, he submitted a complaint grievance pursuant to the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (" DPSC") administrative remedy procedure (" ARP"). Therein, Mr. Hanna raised grievances titled: ( 1) " Inmate Kingdom Prison Law Libraries Inadequate"; ( 2) " Delinquent Officer Use of Force Injury Tort Claim"; ( 3) Delinquent Officer Malfeasance Injury Tort Claim"; and ( 4) " Delinquent Officer Mischief Injury Tort Claim[.]" Each of these grievances was neatly written on a single and separate page. Mr. Hanna also submitted a fifth grievance regarding an incident that took place on October 8, 2024, titled " Inadequate Medical Care Injury Disfigurement Disability Claim," which spanned two pages. On January 2, 2025, the Warden' s Office provided Mr. Hanna with an ARP rejection notice dated December 27, 2024, which identified the date of incident as " 10/ 08/ 2024" and stated, This request is too lengthy. In order for it to be considered, you must resubmit the grievance summarized on no more than one page." This rejection notice was labeled RCC -2024- 977." Mr. Hanna resubmitted. his ARP, which included all of the previous complaints plus an additional grievance titled " RCC Medical Personnel Attacking Inmates in the Infirmary Triage Room[.]" The Warden' s Office provided Mr. Hanna 2 with a second ARP rejection notice on January 8, 2025, labeled " RCC -2025- 017." The rejection notice was dated January 6, 2025, and stated: This request is too lengthy. In order for it to be considered, you must resubmit the grievance summarized on no more than two pages. THIS OFFICE HAS ALREADY REJECTED THIS COMPLAINT DUE TO IT BEING VERY LENG-THY..FOLLOW ESTABLISHED RULES & PROCEDURES. THIS OFFICE WILL NOT CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT UNTIL IT is SUMMARIZED ON I OR 2 PAGES AND NO MORE!!!!! Mr. Hanna filed two petitions for judicial review at the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (" 19th JDC") on January 29, 2025. The first, regarding RCC -2024- 977, was assigned docket number C- 758468 (" Hanna I"), and the second, regarding RCC -2025- 017, was assigned document number C- 758469 (" Hanna 11").' In both petitions, Mr. Hanna alleged that his ARPs were rejected " with the purpose to thwart exhaustion by giving a false appearance of an over -lengthy ARP grievance." The 19th JDC Commissioner issued a Commissioner' s Screening Report CSW') in Hanna 11 on March, 20, 2025. The CSR stated that the 19th JDC lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the ARP process was not fully exhausted. Therefore, the Commissioner recommended dismissal of Hanna 11. Mr. Hanna filed a traversal of the CSR on July 3, 2025. He argued that the Warden incorrectly concluded that his ARP was " too lengthy" by considering all of the grievances together rather than separately. On December 10, 2025, the district court signed a screening judgment, wherein it adopted the Commissioner' s CSR and dismissed Hanna 11 " for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure of exhaustion of 1 Mr. Hanna requested the two cases be consolidated, but it does not appear the 19th JDC acted on Hanna I was dismissed by the 19th JDC, and this court affirmed. See Hanna v. this request. Bickhani, 2025- 0566 ( La. App. I Cir. 2/ 25/ 26), --- So. 3d ----- 2026 WL 519623, writ denied, 2026- 00368 ( La. 9/ 2/ 26), 436 So. 3d 1015. Hanna 11 is the matter currently before this court in this appeal. 3 all administrative remedies, without prejudice, and at the Petitioner' s costs." Mr. Hanna appealed.' This case is governed by the Louisiana Corrections Administrative Remedy Procedure Act (" the Act"), La. R.S. 15: 1171, et seq., which contains the formal grievance mechanism that all offenders committed to the custody of DPSC must use before they may proceed with a suit in federal or state court. Allen v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2024- 1183 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 19/ 25), 430 So. 3d 1105, 1108. Linder the Act, an offender aggrieved by an adverse decision by DPSC rendered pursuant to the prescribed administrative remedies may seek judicial review in the 19th JDC. La. R.S. 15: 1177( A).' On review of the agency' s decision, the district court functions as an appellate court. Allen, 430 So. 3d at 1108. Its review is confined to the record and limited to the issues presented in the petition for review and the ARP filed at the agency level. La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(5). An aggrieved party may appeal a final judgment of the district court to the appropriate appellate court. See La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(10). On appeal of the district court' s judgment, the appellate court reviews the administrative record de novo under the criteria of La. R.S. 15: 1177( A)(9). Allen, 430 So. 3d at 1108. Notice of signing ofjudgment was mailed on January 7, 2026. Mr. Hanna filed a notice of appeal on February 13, 2026, which the district court granted on February 24, 2026. Thus, this appeal is timely pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2087. 3 Agency decisions relative to delictual actions for injury or damages are expressly excluded from La. R.S. 15: 1177( A). After exhausting all administrative remedies, tort actions must be filed separately as original civil actions pursuant to La. R.S. 15: 1177( C) and 15: 1184( A)(2). See Crooker v. Dillon, 2021- 1431 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 22/ 22), 343 So. 3d 799, 802. rd DISCUSSION Prisoner suits are subject to the administrative procedures of the Act. Allen, 430 So. 3d at 1108; LAC 22: 1. 325( D)( 1). Pursuant to the Act, DPSC adopted rules and procedures governing the ARP process, including procedures for receiving, hearing, and disposing of complaints and grievances by offenders against the State that may arise while an offender is within the custody or under the supervision of DPSC. See La. R.S. 15: 1171( 13); LAC 22: I.325. In accordance therewith, offenders must exhaust a two- step ARP process before they can proceed with a suit in state court. See Scott v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2022- 1103 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 14/ 23), 364 So. 3d 1155, 1158, writ denied, 2023- 00703 ( La. 9/ 26/ 23), 370 So. 3d 479. Once an offender initiates the formal ARP process, the grievance is screened prior to being assigned to the first step in the two-step ARP process. LAC 22: I.325( I)( 1). Through the screening process, the grievance is either accepted and processed or rejected for one of the reasons enumerated in LAC 22: 1. 325( I)( 1)( c)( i)( a)-( I). One such reason for rejection is if the request is unclear or the volume of attached material is too great.' See LAC 22: I.325( I)( 1)( c)( i)(k). An offender whose grievance is rejected during screening must correct the noted deficiencies and resubmit the request to the ARP screening officer. LAC 22: I.325( I)( 1)( c)( iii); Perez v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 2023- 1318 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7/ 17/ 24), 395 So. 3d 286, 287. An ARP that is rejected for any of the enumerated reasons in LAC 22: I.325( I)( 1)( c)( i)(a)-( 1) is not appealable to the second step; therefore, an offender has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies if his request is rejected 4 We note that an ARP also may be rejected when the offender " requested a remedy for more than one incident (a multiple complaint) unless the request is a report of an allegation of sexual abuse." LAC 22: I.325( I)( I)( c)( i)( g). 5 LAC 22: 1. 325( F)( 3)( a)( viii); LAC during grievance screening. 22: 1. 325( l)(1)( c)( iii)-(iv); Perez, 395 So. 3d at 288. Accordingly, an ARP must be accepted for proper exhaustion to occur, as exhaustion only occurs when a second - step response had been issued on the merits. LAC 22: 1. 325( F)( 3)( a)( viii). If an offender fails to exhaust available administrative remedies, the district court and the appellate court lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the claim. Perez, 395 So. 3d at 288. Further, if the ARP process has not been completed at the time the petition is filed, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice. See La. R.S. 15: 1172( C). In this matter, Mr. Hanna' s grievance was rejected prior to the first step of the two-step ARP process. Since Mr. Hanna failed to remedy the deficiencies noted in the response and consequently failed to reach the second step, Mr. Hanna has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Therefore, neither the district court nor this court has subject matter jurisdiction to review his claim. After a thorough review of the record and relevant jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in dismissing the petition for judicial review without prejudice. See Hanna v. Bickham, 2025- 0566 ( La. App. I Cir. 2/ 25/ 26), --- So. 3d 2026 VvTL 519623, writ denied, 2026- 00368 ( La. 9/ 2/ 26), 436 So. 3d 1015. DECREE After a thorough review of the record, in consideration of Mark Hanna' s arguments on appeal, and applying the relevant law and jurisprudence, we find no error of law or abuse of discretion by the district court in adopting, as its own, the Commissioner' s screening report. Thus, we affirm the December 10, 2025 judgment of the district court. All costs associated with the appeal are assessed against appellant, Mark Hanna. AFFIRMED. ON